Smaller deal than as kids, but as a track athlete myself (a sport that one could argue is basically a fitness test, or of maximum physical potential in it's regard, so a truer "development" test than hockey, where vision, teammates, etc all play a role in performance) I was in the summer between my second and third year of University before I ever got beat by a younger (local) guy. Guys who've turned out to be national caliber a couple years later. (like, top 15 in Canada, I've won national relay medals as a key piece of a deep team, but these guys contended for national medals as individuals)
And we don't have tiered systems or cuts on our team. You do the same workouts, the better guys just are capable of doing them faster, so the guys who aren't as fast don't do less and develop slower as a result. And still, in a sport which is a pretty good physical yardstick in terms of raw speed in sprinting or in terms of something like VO2 a lot of guys REALLY hit their stride around 20.
A year from 18 to 19 is almost always a big one. If one year is a huge difference, then isn't 6 months still noteworthy? (potentially 8 - 10 if we're talking jan/feb to oct/nov/dec)
Obviously some kids hit physical peak earlier than others etc, but even if that 6 months is 6 months more experience shooting pucks on the backyard rink before the kid started hockey, that's still six months.
No i agree with you on that. there definitly should be some consideration given the younger player considering the fact of how much development time they are behind. But also, yes, i think some player will hit their stride developmentally at different ages. Ina perfect world there would be cue's scouts can watch for that mark wether "this kid is performing highly and hasn't hit that peak yet" or "this kid is performing higly because he has already hit his peak".
I would wager a guess that scouts look for such things currently, but its probably a crap shoot.
resourcers/workouts/etc results in
Originally Posted by winterpeg
This is actually a really interesting point, as I took a coaching course in university, and Sport Canada is now starting to really push LTAD or "long term athletic development" which in the case of track, means not training kids too hard too young, because national junior record holders RARELY go on to break national senior records, because peaking by 18 is too early.
The early years of a kids sport career should be dedicated to building up coordination and skill sets and strength, speed, etc. come later, to make the best athlete in the long term. Unfortunately, Hockey teams are going to pick the bigger stronger kid at 11 years old and that's what gets rewarded.
I agree completely. We say we're grabbng ht emost talented, but because our developmental range is too big, we're just taking those furthest along the curve in an unfair comparison. We then select them to get teh best opportunities to learn the coordination/skill sets that every player should be getting.
it really does suck anyway it boils down. Just makes you wish you could run leagues in jan-may, may-aug, augh-dec age catagories. would actually allow the real "talent" to float to the top a lot cleaner.